The Double Framing Effect of Emotive Metaphors in Argumentation

Abstract

In argumentation, metaphors are often considered as ambiguous or deceptive uses of language leading to fallacies of reasoning. However, they can also provide useful insights into creative argumentation, leading to genuinely new knowledge. Metaphors entail a framing effect that implicitly provides a specific perspective to interpret the world, guiding reasoning and evaluation of arguments. In the same vein, emotions could be in sharp contrast with proper reasoning, but they can also be cognitive processes of affective framing, influencing our reasoning and behavior in different meaningful ways. Thus, a double (metaphorical and affective) framing effect might influence argumentation in the case of emotive metaphors, such as “Poverty is a disease” or “Your boss is a dictator,” where specific “emotive words” (disease, dictator) are used as vehicles. We present and discuss the results of two experimental studies designed to explore the role of emotive metaphors in argumentation. The studies investigated whether and to what extent the detection of a fallacious argument is influenced by the presence of a conventional vs. novel emotive metaphor. Participants evaluated a series of verbal arguments containing either “non-emotive” or “emotive” (positive or negative) metaphors as middle terms that “bridge” the premises of the argument. The results show that the affective coherence of the metaphor's vehicle and topic plays a crucial role in participants' reasoning style, leading to global heuristic vs. local analytical interpretive processes in the interplay of the metaphorical and the affective framing effects.

The landslide’s conceptualizing economic decline and its framing effect: Mandarin evidence

“…Theoretically, the weak metaphorical framing effect exhibited in the landslide-framed economic crises is in line with prior studies that metaphorical frames would indeed influence reasoning, emotions, judgments, and behaviors to a certain degree ( Thibodeau and Boroditsky, 2011 , 2013 , 2015 ; Boeynaems et al, 2017 ; Thibodeau et al, 2017 ; Hendricks et al, 2018 ; Hart, 2021 ; Benczes and Ságvári, 2022 ; Brugman et al, 2022 ; Tao et al, 2023 ). Practically, given that risk communication in different metaphorical frames influences the audience’s reasoning, decisions, and even behavior because of the framing effect ( Gibbs and Cameron, 2008 ; Ervas et al, 2021 ), governments, reporters, and experts should be more cautious about metaphor choice in risk warning and communication. Semino (2021) has pointed out that metaphors can be deceptive and prevaricating, and they can also be enlightening and comforting.…”

Exploring metaphor's communicative effects in reasoning on vaccination

“…First of all, metaphor activates information directly connected to the communication topic, as it attributes some relevant properties of the source to the target. In the process, it can favor the understanding of the communication topic, but also influence people's attitudes and emotive evaluation toward the communication topic (Thibodeau, 2016;Ervas et al, 2021). In the case of vaccine communication, participants' attitude and evaluations were indeed influenced by the metaphorical description of vaccination as a collaborative endeavor, especially for what concerned their perceived feeling of safety and control over the health situation at both a personal and collective level.…”